Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes.

I've been told that for a long time.

Donald Trump Jr. just visited the territory, where locals were seen wearing MAGA hats.

I just want to say that it's a very special place.

But to actually buy the island, the U.S. would have to first navigate a series of obstacles.

Greenland, a former Danish colony, has been tied to Denmark both politically and culturally for centuries.

It's hosted multiple visits from the Danish royal family and features symbolically in the crown's coat of arms.

Following Trump's latest comments,

Denmark's king unveiled a change to the centuries-old design, making the segment representing Greenland more prominent.

Although Greenland now has powers to self-govern, the island is still bound to Danish approval on certain issues.

And Denmark maintains responsibility for national defense and security, while at the same time the Greenlandic government has responsibility and control over domestic issues and domestic resources.

So under the current framework,

Trump would need to convince both the Danish government and government of Greenland to agree to a deal.

But if those connections were to detangle through independence, a movement which has been gaining momentum in recent years,

Trump could directly negotiate with Greenland.

Some Greenlanders are welcoming Trump's interest as a way to pursue that goal.

That includes one of the island's most prominent online influencers.

Three things you should know about Greenland.

When I look overall, I'm happy that U.S. is showing this much interest in Greenland because this way we are being heard much, much more around the world.

It feels like us getting the attention is speeding up our independence of Greenland from Denmark.

However, even if Greenland gained independence, analysts say purchasing it is far-fetched.

This decision about Greenland is for Greenlanders.

I don't believe the Greenlanders are interested in swapping one relationship with Denmark for the United States.

Plus, the government of Greenland has said it's not for sale.

But if Trump did manage to make a deal, analysts say two-thirds of Congress would have to ratify a treaty before the takeover would be signed into law by the president.

This process is not without historical precedent.

In 1867, Andrew Johnson gained control of what is now known as Alaska from Russia in a deal which cost the U.S. $7.2 million, equivalent to around $138 million today.

The U.S. has also tried to buy Greenland before.

Sturdy deep-sea cutters of the United States Coast Guard patrol the western Greenland shores.

Following World War II in 1946,

U.S. President Harry Truman offered to buy it for $100 million.

Denmark refused to sell.

So far, Trump hasn't floated a concrete figure for any purchase.

Instead, another option he has not ruled out is taking military action.

Can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas, you are not going to use military or economic coercion?

No, I can't assure you.

You're talking about Panama and Greenland.

No, I can't assure you on either of those two.

But I can say this.

We need them for economic security.

Trump has also suggested leveraging economic policy to achieve his goals in Greenland.

He's threatened to hit Denmark with tariffs if Danish officials don't cooperate with his takeover bid.

Ultimately, it isn't clear how taking control of Greenland would be achieved.

The reason that the Truman administration didn't need to go forward is because NATO was created three years later.

And that was the basis by which the United States signed in 1951 our first defense agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark, which allowed us to create our northernmost military base in northwest Greenland.

That base, which still exists today, includes a radar station that is part of the U.S.'s ballistic missile early warning system.

You know, the thought about invasion, but we're invading ourselves.

We have a base that is right there, and it's so important to the United States.

And again, we have the strongest ally and partner in the Kingdom of Denmark.

Even some of Trump's advisers acknowledge a Greenland takeover is unlikely.

They say instead, an expansion of U.S. presence on the island through economic investments and a larger military footprint is a possibility.

And I think the other, finally, the other option, which I think is more realistic, the U.S. could pursue a free, a compact or free association agreement.

Agreements like we have with Micronesia and some of the other island Pacific nations, this approach would allow the United States to expand our access and influence, but also while providing safety and security for the Greenlandic people.

Greenland has vast deposits in rare earths, oil and gas, also making it a focal point for other major rivals, including China and Russia.

Greenland is quite essential for the homeland security of the United States.

It has been that way certainly since the Second World War to prevent Nazi Germany from invading the United States, the Soviet Union, strategic bombers, Russian submarines.

The United States has to prioritize the Arctic and making sure that we have the strongest possible defense and deterrence. We don't need to purchase Greenland to do that.

We have a robust security, defense and economic relationship with the Kingdom of Denmark.

They have been open for business for quite some time. We just have to deepen that investment.

It's the right thing to do, but we certainly don't have to purchase it.